Alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco and gambling

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Social Affairs' report number 13, which concerns alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, and gambling. The debate is welcome – we should talk about these issues more often – but out of respect for my colleagues' time, I will keep my speech short and only make a few points.

Mr. Speaker! Alcohol is pleasant for many but a hell for some. Many of us unwind with a beer on Friday, have a schnapps at the Christmas table, or toast with champagne when someone gets married. The drinking culture, with everything from Japanese whisky and Spanish bubbly to Gotlandic gin and English ales, enriches. It contributes to pleasant moments both at home and on outings.

That people make food trips to Sweden and visit local producers of alcohol strengthens our tourism industry. Therefore, I am pleased that from June 1st this year, Sweden allows farm sales. We become a bit freer and a bit more like the rest of Europe, which in this case is welcome.

On July 1, there will also be a lower excise tax for microbreweries that produce craft beer on a small scale. Step by step, Sweden is becoming a little freer and a little more pleasant.

Mr. Speaker! Alcohol also has downsides. Over the decades, Swedish drinking has admittedly changed from binge drinking to more responsible and moderate consumption. That is good. But for those who fall through the safety nets or have simply inherited a risk of dependency, there needs to be an effective and intervening protection.

Therefore, it is welcome that the government last year appointed an inquiry into strengthened follow-up and evaluation of public health policy. In order to achieve results, we as decision-makers need health economic analyses that can further develop the measures being taken, so I look forward to taking part in that inquiry when it is completed this autumn.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about alcohol, there are reasons to also mention comorbidity, the umbrella term for those who suffer from both an addiction and a psychiatric diagnosis.

The Social Affairs Committee has had in-depth and exhaustive debates for a long time – not least during the previous parliamentary term, when I unfortunately was not yet a member of the committee. There are many stories about how the committee was finally able to find a majority to issue a motion to the government at the time in 2019. Said and done – an inquiry into strengthening care for those with comorbidity was commissioned, and the final report that arrived in 2023 has been processed in the Government Offices since then.

When we now write 2025 in the calendar, it is gratifying that many have taken the opportunity to submit consultation responses to the investigation, since the change of ownership that is proposed is a very large and far-reaching reform. But to increase the pace and still move forward in the matter, we need to do more here and now.

We who belong to the government parties do not want to wait too long in creating a healthcare structure where fewer people fall through the cracks. Therefore, a comorbidity delegation was recently appointed to prepare and implement the proposed reform of society's interventions for more coordinated, needs-based, and person-centered interventions for persons with comorbidity.

Mr. Speaker! There may be reasons to pause. We often speak of large investigations and large reforms that take a long time to implement. There is a point to that. But along the way, there are many things that politics can seize upon and implement here and now.

An example of a question that has been handled quickly is the one about making naloxone available over the counter, which was a small proposal in a large investigation. There, the government acted quickly – naloxone, which is an antidote to opioid overdose, is now available over the counter.

Also, the question of banning nitrous oxide for the purpose of intoxication was a small issue in a large investigation. Here too, the government is working in a fast track, and proposals will be submitted to the Riksdag during the spring. In politics, it is a matter of being both decisive and impatient, as the Prime Minister usually says.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, a few words on tobacco.

We have known for a long time that the habitual smoking of cigarettes is harmful to us. Here, Sweden has taken enormous steps over the last decades through cultural changes, innovation, and legislation. Today, it is approximately 5.4 percent of the population who smoke cigarettes - a very low figure internationally. With fewer smokers, we get fewer tobacco-related diseases and a healthier population that lives longer.

If Sweden is to reach its goal of being smoke-free – and we Moderates believe Sweden should – then policy needs to steer towards that. We know that there are no nicotine-free countries, but Sweden can be the first in the world to at least become smoke-free. That is what we shall pursue.

Therefore, it is good that Sweden sticks with snus, which in itself is not a health product but is an alternative to smoking. Here, the government has taken large steps through investments in customs so that smuggled cigarettes do not cross the border and through tax increases on cigarettes and a somewhat lower tax on snus and nicotine pouches.

We are close to becoming smoke-free, but that does not mean that politics can take a holiday. Even though we should rejoice in Swedish smoke-free status and protect Swedish snus against the meddlesome bureaucrats in the union, there are reasons to protect Sweden's young people from developing nicotine addiction at an early age.

That is why we Moderates are proposing to ban the sale of nicotine products to children and that the supervision of points of sale should be tightened. There may also be reasons to introduce an upper limit for nicotine content so that extreme products with over 50 milligrams per portion disappear from the market. Snus and nicotine products are a less harmful alternative to cigarettes, but they are not to be considered as fruit or candy. Adults should be allowed to make adult decisions, but children and young people should be protected from youthful folly.

Our goal is clear: tobacco policy shall lead to reduced medical and social damages, but there shall be zero tolerance for offering addictive products to children.

With that, I would like to take the opportunity to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, for the speech!

We share the joy that farm sales will become a reality by the summer. It is something that the Center Party has worked for for 20 years and which the Moderates subsequently joined and have been involved in driving in the Riksdag. The Member of Parliament is one of those who has been proactive in that work. It feels very good.

Now that question will become a reality. Then there is reason to address other issues linked to Swedish alcohol policy and Swedish alcohol legislation.

A question that is very much debated at the moment is the one regarding the food requirement at restaurants, pubs, and cafés. Everyone who has a liquor license has a requirement to provide food. They must not only offer food to the person who goes there, but they must also have their own kitchen where they produce or prepare this food.

According to today's requirements, one must not only have food. Furthermore, a wide range of dishes must be offered, and service must be provided until 11 p.m. There is every reason to question this requirement, and from the Center Party's side, we want to see that it is removed.

Mr. Speaker! I have heard that the Moderates are also on that line, but I have not seen any proposals from the government on this. I therefore wonder where the Moderates actually stand in relation to the question of the food requirement. Is it the case that the question is so well-prepared that one could also present a sharp proposition on this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Bergenblock, for the question!

The Moderates are positive about reviewing the food requirement. There are reasons to question whether it is relevant in today's Sweden. We see that our food and drink habits have changed through the decades. There are therefore reasons to review certain requirements in the Alcohol Act.

The Alcohol Act is a protective law, but writings stating that, for example, there must be cooked food in a preparation kitchen have made it difficult for, for example, sushi bars and others to obtain serving permits. This is a problem because sushi is also food, even if it is not hot.

Regarding the food requirement, the Social Affairs Committee already issued a notice to the government during the previous parliamentary term. The Centre Party and the Moderates supported it. We do not see any reason to issue new notices on the issue now, as the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices. I assume that it is being prepared like other issues, and if a government bill on the topic is submitted, we will gladly vote in favor of that proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The wording that if a proposition comes to the Riksdag's table we will vote for it does not sound quite wholehearted. Politics is also about driving issues forward. For all intents and purposes, a motion was submitted during the previous parliamentary term. The fact is that there is a government investigation now, which is finished and prepared, lying on the government's table. It concerns nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide. In that, they have also reviewed the food requirement.

Now, the situation is that the investigation only proposes very modest changes to today's requirements system. They want to go from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m., and they want to change from a wide range of dishes to a varied range. In practice, it is a cosmetic change of a bad piece of legislation.

What is interesting, however, is that this investigation and this report mean that the issue is sufficiently prepared for the government to be able to put forward a concrete proposal. What I am looking for, Mr. Speaker, is to hear whether the Moderates share the view that there is now an opportunity for the government to put forward a concrete proposal to remove the food requirement.

Then I can promise the members that it is something that the Center Party will, of course, also support - if it is well-formulated. But what is the actual situation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can inform Member Bergenblock that he does not need to explain to me how politics works. I know that politics is not just about talking, and it is not just about wanting. It is also about doing.

During the first two years of this mandate period, we have likely fulfilled more of the Center Party's election promises than the Center Party managed to achieve in four years during the previous mandate period. With our government, it will become cheaper diesel for farmers, we will introduce farm sales, and we will loosen the coastal protection.

Question by question, we approach ourselves in a spirit of compromise and move forward. We place things on the Riksdag's table that actually get through. Even if not every small part of the Moderates' party program will be implemented during this mandate period, I can promise that Sweden will become a little freer and a little better with our government option than with the government option that Christofer Bergenblock belongs to.

The fact is that the January agreement, and what formed the basis for C being allowed to participate in budget negotiations, was a document that did not amount to much. There were two investigations—one on farm sales and one on shore protection—but none of that could be passed through the Riksdag.

Even though I agree with Member Christofer Bergenblock that we should review the food requirement, I can say that liberal reforms are achieved with good friends, and I cannot see that Bergenblock has any such friends on his side in politics.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have just debated public health issues here in the chamber. Important aspects of the Swedish public health work are undoubtedly what we call ANDTS. One can say nothing other than that alcohol, drugs, doping, tobacco, and gambling in different ways lead to extensive public health problems. The ultimate consequence of this is that approximately 15,000 Swedes every year die as a result of harmful use and addiction.

We have a national strategy for the ANDTS work that runs until the end of this year. It is time for the next one, and we Social Democrats believe that we must have high ambitions for the years to come. It is needed in a time when public health is challenged both by new lifestyle habits - as we have heard about here today - and by companies and criminal networks that earn large sums of money on products that are harmful to people's health.

One of the products is snus. In recent years, we have seen a sharp increase in daily snus use in Sweden, especially among young girls. According to the Central Association for Alcohol and Drug Information, today 29 percent of second-year high school students report that they use snus regularly. Among girls, it has increased from 4 to 26 percent in ten years. In ninth grade, 14 percent of girls now use snus. It is a historically high level, and it concerns almost exclusively the tobacco-free, white nicotine snus.

In the same way, there has also been a sharp increase in young people who try and use e-cigarettes. We hear in today's debate that white snus, nicotine snus, is a healthier alternative than brown snus and that nicotine cigarettes are a healthier alternative than tobacco cigarettes.

But it is children and young people who are primarily enticed to use these highly addictive and nicotine-rich products that have flavors taken from the Saturday candy shelf. It is children and young people who have never used brown snus or regular cigarettes. This is not a good development.

We Social Democrats want, to begin with, to limit the nicotine content in white snus, so that it is at least not more addictive than traditional tobacco snus. We also want a ban on the sale of snus, and we do not want it to be permitted to sell single, or small, packages of white snus to young people.

Another area, Mr. Speaker, in which we have seen a rapid and very worrying development is the use of nitrous oxide. It is obvious that new legislation is required that prohibits the use of nitrous oxide both for intoxication purposes and in sales to children under 18 years of age. We Social Democrats welcome that the government has announced that it is working to achieve such legislation as quickly as possible.

And then we have alcohol. It is a source of enjoyment for many. It is celebration, a touch of luxury, and a part of our cultural heritage. It is also a source of a number of serious diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and depression, and it is a source of increased violence and various types of accidents.

Add to that that every fifth child in Sweden, up to 430,000 children, has had at least one parent with alcohol problems during their upbringing. Of the Swedish children, 15 percent have been negatively affected by having grown up with a parent with alcohol problems, and 10 percent - 215,000 children - have been very negatively affected.

I believe that we in here are quite in agreement that we desire the best and safest upbringing conditions possible for our children and youth. But the alcohol policy debate is - we have heard it here today - to the greatest extent about greater freedom for adults and greater freedom for the business sector.

It is about the freedom for the individual to trade more and more easily and about the freedom of Sunday trading at Systemet. It is about freedom for companies to avoid complicated rules, for example, to avoid having to serve food at the pub to obtain a serving license, and about the freedom for local producers to be able to sell directly to the consumer. In the debate on the so-called farm sales, the clearest arguments from the Tidö parties are simply that Sweden should become a bit freer, a bit more pleasant, and a bit more like the rest of Europe.

We Social Democrats believe that great freedom also requires great responsibility and great caution. We stand firm on a restrictive alcohol policy, and we do not believe that the Riksdag should make decisions that undermine Systembolaget's retail monopoly and public health mandate.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The previous Social Democratic government was involved in launching the inquiries that have been raised earlier today. The starting point was a continued restrictive drug policy combined with effective preventive work, good substance abuse and addiction care, as well as better integrated care for persons with co-morbidity, that is, people who both suffer from mental ill-health and have a harmful use or addiction.

There is a broad political consensus that major changes are required, and it is time for the government to return with a bill so that those changes can be realized.

Mr. Speaker! I support all the Social Democrats' motions but specifically request approval for reservation 17.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

The Christian Democrats support a solidary, public health-based and restrictive Swedish drug and alcohol policy. All people shall be able to grow up and live without the risk of being harmed due to their own or others' use of alcohol, drugs, doping agents, tobacco or gambling.

We safeguard Systembolaget's sales monopoly and an active price policy that, through excise taxes, makes alcohol somewhat more expensive than other beverages in order to thereby promote moderate alcohol habits. Together with strong preventive work, these measures can reduce the medical and social harmful effects of alcohol, which are extensive, as well as the related socio-economic costs. Within primary care, issues of dependency should be a natural part of the care's responsibility for public health work.

Mr. Speaker! More effective public health interventions through health economic analyses are important, and we Christian Democrats are positive towards an ANDTS strategy. The Public Health Agency shall have submitted a consolidated follow-up of the ANDTS strategy to the Government Offices by May 1, 2025, at the latest. The follow-up shall cover the development in relation to the strategy's goals. In the consolidated follow-up, the Public Health Agency shall also submit proposals for a basis for the design of the continued ANDTS policy.

Mr. Speaker! All nicotine products are highly addictive. They affect the brain's development, especially in children and young people, and can harm the fetus during pregnancy as well as have negative effects on, among other things, the heart and blood vessels. In the first major measurement regarding tobacco-free or white snus, CAN found that use has become as common among women as among men, and that it is most common among people in the ages of 17-29 years. Children and young people run a greater risk of harm and therefore need an extra protection against being exposed to risks. This is, therefore, an important issue.

The latest investigation within the ANDTS area presented its report in March 2024, "A safe upbringing without nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide." The investigation proposes a new law which, among other things, means that the sale of nitrous oxide to children under 18 years of age shall be prohibited and that nitrous oxide otherwise may only be sold in limited quantities or for use in commercial activities. Nitrous oxide shall also not be allowed to be sold if there is reason to assume that it will be used as an intoxicant. The Government intends to submit a proposition on this to the Riksdag on April 15, 2025.

Alcohol can be a source of joy and pleasure but also of great costs. Illness, crime, and accidents that can be related to alcohol are estimated today to cost our society over 100 billion kronor per year. But behind the costs there are also many human destinies.

Mr. Speaker! A survey conducted by the SOM Institute shows that the issue of drugs ranks third when it comes to Swedes' worries about the future. First comes the worry about organized crime, and number two is the situation in Russia. Then comes the worry about increased drug use. This is, therefore, a major societal problem.

Swedish drug policy needs to be developed. The Government and Social Minister Jakob Forssmed have made several important interventions. Consumption is not increasing significantly, and the number of people with problematic use remains stable; perhaps we even see a small decrease since 2007. Regarding mortality resulting from drugs, it has decreased by approximately 30 percent since 2015. However, it is not possible to be satisfied with that, and consumption needs to go down. Those who fall between the cracks need to receive help.

At the same time, we need to prepare for the fact that mortality may increase if, for example, heroin is replaced with even more lethal substances, such as fentanyls, now that the Taliban in Afghanistan have practically ceased their heroin production.

The government has done two important things that will have a major effect. It concerns the new Social Services Act that is underway and the comorbidity delegation. These are two very large reforms that will benefit us well.

At the same time, it feels good that this government does not want to see a legalization or decriminalization of any drugs. The experience of cannabis legalization that is now coming from North America shows that consumption goes up. The youth do not reduce their already sky-high consumption, and at the same time, young adults use even more. Child poisonings are also increasing. In Germany, the Christian Democrats have said they are willing, if they win power, to back down and remove the legalization that has been introduced. It has also been said that one must look at the consequences this has had.

Finally: The Christian Democrats want a drug-free society and work to stop all tendencies toward drug liberalization. Mortality must decrease, and care must become better. The work to reduce both supply and demand must become more effective. The stigmatization of people who have an addiction must decrease and preferably cease.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I just debated farm sales with the Moderate MP Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and could conclude that this legislation is finally moving forward. It may not be thanks to the Christian Democrats, but it is at least despite the Christian Democrats. It was, after all, the case that one changed sides in connection with the 2022 election. Ebba Busch at least stood her ground and stated that KD was for farm sales, which they had not been previously. This was a prerequisite for there to be a change here, even if KD has also contributed with a bickering minister who has contributed to it taking some time. Now, however, it is moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the previous debate. I must say that the reason this can be presented now is the investigation that was carried out during the period of the January agreement in the previous mandate, which was ready and waiting on the Government Offices' desk when the new government took office – otherwise, it would have taken this entire mandate period to make progress there.

We leave that area and go back to the food requirement. We heard earlier from the Moderate member, even if it was not entirely heartfelt, that the Moderates are in favor of reviewing and, in the best case, also removing the food requirement in connection with alcohol service. I think it has been less clear where the Christian Democrats stand on that issue. Are the Christian Democrats prepared to review – and to abolish – the current food requirement at alcohol service?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Christofer Bergenblock for the question.

We have now received the report from the Inquiry on nitrous oxide and certain issues within the alcohol and tobacco area. The Inquiry has, among other things, looked at this issue and assessed the scope for and the need for relaxations in the regulations for obtaining a serving permit, and has also considered whether the requirements can be modernized, simplified, and clarified.

This is being prepared right now. We are looking at this part. There are a number of questions that must be sorted out, including what effects this will have. Earlier in the debate, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson touched upon this and on the fact that dishes, for example sushi, should be kept warm. There are different parts that must be sorted out.

We are looking at these questions now. We have many different perspectives to take into account, for example the public health perspective.

We are looking at this issue and will provide a decision in due course.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I still request the Christian Democrats' position on this issue. The Christian Democrats are a political party represented in this assembly, and reasonably, one should have a position regarding the food requirement. We have heard many times that a minister can hide behind the fact that an investigation or a preparation is ongoing in the Government Offices, but it must still be the case that the political party Christian Democrats has an opinion on the food requirement.

The investigation speaks of lowering the requirement for serving time from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m., which we have already touched upon. It is also about changing the requirement for a broad food selection to a requirement for a varied food selection and about reviewing whether cold dishes can be considered dishes. It is not, however, about removing the food requirement as such, for that is not what the investigation proposes.

If there is to be any workshop on this specific issue, it requires that one has a political ambition to make changes there. That is why I previously asked the Moderaterna about their political ambition there. I perceived it as clear: Moderaterna want to remove the food requirement. But it is clear that it is not simple if the Tidö parties have different opinions.

My question to the Christian Democrats is again: Where do the Christian Democrats stand as a political party in relation to the food requirement? I am not asking what is currently being investigated or prepared. I do not want to hear that we will see later, but I want to hear what opinion the Christian Democrats have on this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, there are many aspects to this issue. We want to look at it broadly. If it were possible without major impact, it is very possible that that will be the case. We are looking at a number of different solutions.

We deliver on very many of the issues that we believe are important for the country. On just this issue, we will eventually, once we have considered the different parts, deliver an answer.

We Christian Democrats are now working broadly to try to implement the policy we went to the election on. We went to the election on 45 election promises. Already after two years, 43 of them are implemented or on the way to being implemented. Many of these issues concern simplifications for the individual. Even in this issue, we are looking at whether simplifications can be made.

The Christian Democrats continue to work with the broad perspective and see both advantages and disadvantages. We will return to this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Even in this debate, I shall try to refrain from repeating much of what I have already said. I will repeat myself a little, but hopefully not so much.

Let me first state that what falls within the scope of the ANDTS area directly affects people's lives. Sometimes it can also completely destroy people's lives. Therefore, it is very good that the entire committee has a strong commitment to this area.

The Sweden Democrats have long requested a new ANDTS strategy, as I mentioned earlier. We want it, on one hand, to reflect the parliamentary majority's will to take into account the varying harmful effects that different tobacco and nicotine products have, and on the other hand, to be adapted to greater extent to the current reality with new indicators and the like.

When I now mentioned tobacco, I can also take the opportunity to mention that there are several reasons why Sweden is almost smoke-free and practically has the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the world. That is because we have been at the forefront of spreading information and restricting products, for example regarding advertising and on outdoor seating areas. It is also because a not healthy but significantly less harmful alternative has been available and quite popular.

The Sweden Democrats do not want to see a policy that makes it harder for people to make a less harmful choice. Every year, there are still thousands who get cancer as a result of smoking. It is perhaps among the worst things one can get, and many obviously die from it. As far as I know, there are no tobacco-snus-related deaths. This is an important difference. Of course, we should work towards fewer people using nicotine products overall, but the consequence of this must not be that more people start smoking – then it becomes counterproductive from a public health perspective.

At the same time, we see a clear problem in that more young people are starting to use nicotine products and at increasingly younger ages. We must not ignore this, and I notice that we are not doing so either.

We must find ways to work towards both target groups simultaneously, that is, both adults, who - according to what we all agree on so far - have the right to use the products and also choose less harmful alternatives, and young people, who should not use nicotine at all.

We take a positive stance on the proposals regarding the ban on vaping and nicotine-free school time, and we are open to reviewing the rules on marketing.

The same investigation that proposes nicotine-free school time also proposes a new regulation of nitrous oxide, which has also been mentioned previously. As I understand it, all parties are now positive about this. We look forward to this being handled as soon as possible so that we can put a stop to the misuse of the product.

Furthermore, the government should conduct a fundamental review of both past and current narcotics policy. There are huge problems now, and it is obvious that it has not gone well for Sweden's part. Future narcotics policy shall be based on the latest research, with a focus on harm minimization rather than on political inventions. In this way, we create concrete and effective legislation that, in the long run, saves lives.

The Sweden Democrats urge the government to act based on the Narcotics Investigation's recommendations. We particularly support the proposals for measures aimed at prevention work, harm minimization, and the compilation of current science.

The Tidö Agreement states that addiction care shall be strengthened, and the government has indicated that it intends to proceed with legislative work based on the Samsjuklighetsutredningen (Comorbidity Inquiry). This has also been mentioned previously, so I will not dwell on it. It is, in any case, pleasing that we were also able to see very recently that a delegation has been appointed to work on strengthening the interventions for persons with comorbidity.

Another current but significantly more lighthearted issue is the sale of farms. That the sale of farms should be permitted has been requested for a long time, and it has been investigated three times. The latest investigation was completed as early as 2021. It is therefore very positive that the government has now presented concrete proposals that enable a limited form of farm sales.

As a public health policymaker, I naturally advocate for drinking as little alcohol as possible, but it is still positive that we see a cultural shift from a focus on intoxication to a focus on taste, experience, and craftsmanship. Here we see that farm sales do more good than harm, at least combined with the benefits for Swedish business.

Regardless of how pleasant it is with farm sales, the fact remains that alcohol is one of the most dangerous substances intended for human consumption that is legal in Sweden. The list of alcohol's harmful effects is extensive, and it is imperative for public health policy to both inform about these and reduce the total consumption in Sweden.

Today, there is a discrepancy between, for example, alcohol products and tobacco products regarding warning texts on the packaging. The introduction of warning texts and images on tobacco products has proven to be a clear and cost-effective form of health information for tobacco users. The positive effect has also been established internationally.

In view of the harmful effects of alcohol, there is therefore, we believe, reason to consider a more uniform approach to warning texts. We therefore believe that the government should investigate the potential effects of implementing requirements for health risk disclosure on alcohol products.

Madam Speaker! We stand behind all our reservations, but to save time, I move for approval only of reservation 9, which concerns mapping the current drug situation in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by highlighting the people in our society who every day, either in their work or voluntarily, work to support and help people who in one way or another have fallen into a dependency on that which we are debating today.

Civil society becomes the core of this work, whether it is a church, a city mission or sports clubs. Everyone makes incredibly valuable contributions in this. It is people who care about others, who do not give up, who offer a roof over their heads and food on the table and who see their fellow human being. They are persistent, and they are patient. When the person who has fallen into a problematic addiction loses everything—friends, family and even the support of the authorities—it is these voluntary heroes who continue to support and help.

A heavy subject like this makes me think, above all, of the children who live in a home where one or both parents have an addiction. These children are far too many. Politics must do more.

It matters that we have Systembolaget in Sweden today. It matters greatly where its stores are located, how many there are, when they are open, and how they conduct their sales. It matters that young people are allowed to show their ID there. Even which aisle one walks in the store matters for how much one takes with them when leaving. Why does this matter? Yes, because for the people who are affected by the downsides of alcohol, including the children, it matters.

Madam Speaker! Last year, the overdose-reversing medication naloxone could begin to be sold over the counter at pharmacies. It is very welcome that the availability of antidotes that save lives in cases of overdose has increased. Now, even more society-critical professions need to be equipped with naloxone. Field workers, firefighters, and police officers are some examples of people who may encounter people who have overdosed. When, not if, such situations arise, we must be able to save people's lives.

We need more preventive and harm-reducing measures within Swedish drug policy. It must be self-evident that those who suffer from harmful use and addiction to drugs receive good care and the right help to become healthy and return to society. We must not give up that idea.

We who have walked close to a person living in an addiction, where one relapse succeeds another, know that everyone eventually gives up on these people. The family cannot endure it. The friends cannot endure it. Eventually, they cannot endure it themselves. It is then, when everyone else has given up, that the public sector needs to step up.

Therefore, the Liberals believe we need consumption rooms where persons with a harmful addiction can consume drugs that they have purchased and brought themselves without risking a police intervention.

According to studies that the Narcotics Inquiry refers to, consumption rooms do not lead to increased use of drugs or risk-taking. On the other hand, research is important to show the clear advantages of consumption rooms, and we need to see better what effect they have.

Consumption rooms reduce overdose-related injuries and deaths and unsafe user behaviors and facilitate the care of and, above all, the support for people whom everyone has given up on. For those for whom no one sees any hope anymore, a consumption room can be a place for a human encounter that can lead to a life-saving turning point. Those who need help must receive care quickly, and a consumption room can be an important step on the way.

A person who is trapped in addiction is not free. In Sweden, we need to evaluate our drug policy in an unbiased way. The goal must be to save lives, prevent suffering, and increase people's dignity. We need a social policy and a health and medical care system that is based on knowledge and proven experience.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! This is an interesting evening, I must say. Different waves of questions are coming from unexpected places. It feels a bit exciting.

Otherwise, I can think that it is very much "Ropen skalla - more alcohol for everyone!". So the cry comes partly from the right but primarily from the Center Party. I perhaps did not see that coming, that you in the Center Party would be the knights of more alcohol for everyone. I am a bit astonished, but perhaps we should not dig into that here.

We are not going to discuss the sale of farms now – we will have that debate ahead. But when Public Health Minister Forssmed was forced to push through the sale of farms – that is how I see it – the opposition city councilor Christofer Fjellner in Stockholm immediately came out and proposed Sunday opening at Systembolaget so that parents could manage their life puzzles. I thought it was a clumsy misstep. It was a bit thoughtless, and there was zero consideration. Alcohol is a very dangerous commodity. It is not an ordinary commodity, but it is actually a drug. 10 percent – 215,000 – of all children in Sweden would be severely affected if Systembolaget disappeared, if the monopoly were disrupted, and if we were to have Sunday opening at Systemet. I must say that.

Madam Speaker! We want to see a legislative change regarding the promotion ban when it concerns distance trading of alcohol. In recent years, new types of sales activities have emerged here and there around Sweden. We must look into that.

The market is always looking to sell. As politicians, we must be vigilant about that. We believe that it should not be permitted to use flavor additives that make tobacco-free snus attractive to children and young people. That is what it is now; we can see it. We want the authorities to look into this and potentially issue a ban. It is important, because today we can see a huge increase in the number of children and young people who use snus.

Madam Speaker! During the years 1986-1987, I worked with HIV-infected people who were dependent on the LVM home Serafen. At that time, HIV had arrived in Sweden. The people at the treatment home, which was located opposite the Stadshuset, knew that they were going to die. HIV was, at that time, a deadly disease, an infection. But it was something that made a difference for these women and men. They all had their own apartments. Everyone had contacts with addiction units, social services, and psychiatry. A very large amount of resources were allocated to addiction at that time.

It was not like now, when many are completely under the ice and forgotten. It was before the 90s crisis and the enormous cuts in the public sector, before the criminalization of own use, and before the sell-off of public services. And it was before misery became legion for so many. Politicians have turned a blind eye to this for decades. I think we, all parties, should be ashamed of it. Did you see Uppdrag granskning a week ago? You can see it on SVT Play. They clearly showed what this has led to. So, there is a terrible misery here outside.

During the years 1993-2022, the number of reported drug crimes has gone from just over 40,000 to just over 100,000 per year. Today, over 90 percent of the reported drug crimes consist of possession for own use. There is no data suggesting that the criminalization of own use, which was introduced in 1988, has been followed by a reduced supply of drugs, higher prices, fewer open drug scenes, reduced use in the population, fewer people with problematic drug use, reduced healthcare needs, or anything else. The development has gone in exactly the opposite direction, and I think that is what we should look at. I think that what we should look at is research and evidence, not homemade small ideas we have about things and matters. This is incredibly important.

We still have an enormous drug mortality. In 2022, there were 519 drug-related deaths, and it was again an increase.

It is perhaps time for us to abandon the punitive and ineffective drug policy that we have and instead build this on care, prevention, and harm minimization. Some have mentioned this. The police resources should not focus on the individual user but on completely different people up in the hierarchy, so to speak. It is about drug trafficking, smuggling and so on - that which finances the gang crime.

The ESO report Bruk och Straff, which was released in 2023, shows that today's addiction policy does not correspond to the developments in knowledge in the field or society's needs. More and more people are suffering - there is statistics on that. And the methods used within social services and addiction care are not adequate.

It is positive to see that in Sweden it is not as socially accepted to use drugs as it is in many other countries. But the criminalization of personal use has resulted in a very repressive view of people with addictions, which has many negative consequences. I have already mentioned that. We simply risk that the police focus on the wrong things. A punitive drug policy reduces neither the importation nor the availability.

Many people want to investigate this. It is not only Vänsterpartiet, but it is also Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, Folkhälsomyndigheten, very many researchers and so on who want to see if there are reasons to do something to make it easier for persons with substance abuse and addiction to seek help. We believe that the government should investigate how the law on criminalization of personal use has affected the number of users and consumers and their quality of life, health, and drug-freedom.

We also consider - we took this up at our congress in May last year - that the goal of the Swedish drug policy should be changed from a society free from drugs to a society with reduced harms from drugs based on a restrictive view of drugs.

I would like to move for approval of reservation number 10.

In March 2022, the then government appointed the inquiry into a Swedish drug policy adapted to present and future challenges, called the Drug Inquiry (Narkotikautredningen). It has presented its views. Among other things, the government was recommended to adopt a program to reduce deaths resulting from drug and medicine poisoning. That should be very useful in these times. The report also contains several proposals on how drug use can be reduced among young people and how we can build up care for this.

Now, one has to issue some kind of general inquiry regarding this investigation. It is not here, it is there. It should be ready to come back so that one can look at this. We have welcomed the entire report, and now we are waiting for action to be taken around it.

Madam Speaker! Now we finally see that the government has moved a few snail's paces forward regarding the issue of comorbidity. We believe that an open addiction care is needed with a clear approach to intervene early, before the harmful use has accelerated and created problems with housing, livelihood, and so on.

Research results show that nine out of ten people with substance abuse or addiction prefer to seek help within health and medical care. Only 5 percent want help from social services. In most comparable countries, care is organized differently than in Sweden. We are not the best in the world. Sometimes it is good to look around. These countries also have much, much lower mortality rates.

This issue is addressed in the Commission on Co-occurring Substance Abuse. Now we are waiting for something more to happen from the delegation that has been chosen to be appointed, because in Sweden, it goes very slowly when it comes to drug policy, I must say.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3, under point 2, regarding the Alcohol Act's requirements for food service and own kitchen.

In previous years in this debate, I have devoted quite a lot of time to the specific issue of farm sales of alcoholic beverages. Demands for the introduction of farm sales have also been the most commonly occurring motion proposal in the Social Affairs Committee's total area in previous years. That is not the case this year. The reason is that there is finally a concrete proposal to introduce farm sales, and it will become a reality starting from the summer of 2025.

It pleases both me and the Center Party, which has championed the issue for 20 years, not least because we were behind the investigation conducted during the previous parliamentary term and thereby enabled the introduction of farm sales during this parliamentary term.

A separate debate on this will come a bit further along, and then I will present the Center Party's views on the somewhat restrictive proposal that the government intends to put forward.

Instead, Madam Speaker, I now intend to move on to speaking about the alcohol legislation as a whole.

Centerpartiet wants to see a larger review of the legislation in order to remove outdated and unnecessary requirements. It is therefore fundamentally not about increasing consumption or making alcohol more accessible, but about removing things that are not contemporary but have survived past their lifespan. These are proposals that hardly have any noticeable impact on public health but which, on the other hand, can have great significance for many of the businesses that exist in this area.

Furthermore, we argue that some of these proposals have already been prepared within the framework of the government investigation that has been conducted regarding nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide, and that there are therefore all possibilities for the government to move forward decisively if only the will and consensus exist.

To begin with, I would like to highlight the need to remove the so-called food requirement in connection with alcohol service. Today's alcohol legislation, in fact, requires that there must be both food and a kitchen available in connection with alcohol service. However, there is no requirement that one must eat the food served there. There was such a requirement once upon a time, even though the eating was already largely a sham maneuver even then. There is also no evidence that the food requirement itself affects either drinking or sobriety.

On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the food requirement poses major problems for many of the businesses that are forced to have a kitchen open and staffed until 11 p.m. in the evening, even if there is not a single guest interested in eating. We consider this to be completely unreasonable and therefore see reason to remove it.

We also see that there is reason to review other parts of the alcohol legislation that are outdated today. What we are waiting for is for the government's mills to grind on these issues and actually come up with proposals based on the opportunities that the government inquiry provides.

Madam Speaker! There are also other areas where the government's mills grind slowly, and that leads me into the area concerning nitrous oxide.

The investigation that I mentioned earlier was completed in March 2024. One of the proposals put forward there is to regulate the sale of nitrous oxide, as it has become an increasingly large and alarming problem among young people. Today, nitrous oxide is sold in both stores and online, directly to young people whose only purpose is to get intoxicated. The problem has escalated, and both the police, social services, and healthcare testify to an increasingly unsustainable situation with young people who are affected by nitrous oxide and who have also suffered permanent damage from having used nitrous oxide.

That is why it was very welcome when the investigation arrived. The Centre Party also opened up to let the issue go through a fast track to get necessary legislation in place, just as the government has handled many other issues during this mandate period. Unfortunately, instead, they have dragged their feet. Now it is finally on the spring's list of government bills, and I hope that a regulation can be in place by the summer.

Another area, Madam Speaker, where the government has really dragged its feet during this parliamentary term concerns the Narcotics Inquiry and the Co-morbidity Inquiry. We do not know at all what will happen with the proposals in the Narcotics Inquiry, but on the other hand, it is pleasing that they have finally moved forward with the Co-morbidity Inquiry. However, it required a committee initiative from a united opposition to get this far.

The work that has now been presented with a co-morbidity delegation that shall work with the implementation is positive, and we will closely monitor that it also yields results. Some proposals in the Co-morbidity Inquiry also enter the Narcotics Inquiry, for example the requirement for needle exchange programs. As has been mentioned previously in today's debate, we also need to investigate and introduce pilot projects with drug rooms in the same way as already exists in, for example, Norway and Denmark.

Drug-related mortality in Sweden has more than doubled during the last ten years. It is high time that we reduce the vulnerability of addicts and begin to treat both addiction and abuse as the disease it actually is.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not think anyone has overlooked the fact that companies producing different types of nicotine products work hard on their marketing and their lobbying. I myself have seen advertisements for so-called white snus in the most unexpected places, for example, in a bar in Cape Town.

The government also seems to be helping the companies at the last minute when they present the use of snus as something that can be harm-reducing. This thinking was behind the reduction of the tax on traditional snus that the government has implemented. The Public Health Agency instead proposed last year that all tobacco and nicotine products should be regulated more similarly in order to reduce the availability and demand for tobacco and nicotine products, primarily to protect children and young people. Miljöpartiet regrets that this change has not occurred.

As has been mentioned previously, the proportion of girls using snus in upper secondary school has increased from 4 percent to 26 percent over ten years, according to statistics from CAN. This cannot be linked to reduced smoking habits, as the decrease in smoking occurred before the increase in snus use began. It is difficult to ignore that it is precisely the companies' marketing of snus, not least white snus, to young people that lies behind this increase.

It is therefore difficult to see the promotion of snus as harm reduction work. Snus only reduces the risk of harm if the person who uses snus smoked before they started using snus. If the person did not use any nicotine products at all previously and then starts using snus, it is not harm reduction.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has stood behind what is commonly called the tobacco convention, the World Health Organization's convention for tobacco control. It entered into force in 2005 and aims to reduce tobacco-related deaths and diseases in the world.

One of the convention's articles, 5.3, deals with protecting public health policy from the influence of the tobacco industry. According to the tobacco convention, the parties shall take the measures set out in the convention to protect public health policy from exactly this. We believe that Sweden, based on this convention, which we have ratified, should develop guidelines based on article 5.3 and make these known to the public.

A legislative change that came into effect on 1 August 2022 entails an 18-year age limit for the purchase of white snus. Requirements are also set here that products such as white snus shall be marketed in a moderate manner. We believe there are reasons to review how the legislation could be tightened so that children and young people shall avoid being exposed to marketing to be enticed to start using nicotine products.

Madam Speaker! That the issue of gambling problems is now included in the ANDTS strategy is very good. Gambling that leads to addiction can destroy people's lives. For children, it can be both frightening, incomprehensible, and difficult to cope with. Trust in a parent risks being lost.

We see that there is an important need for support groups such as those that exist within the framework of Spelberoendes Riksförbund. I would like to see the government appropriately review the issue moving forward for a sustainable structure, where as many support groups as needed can be formed in a reasonable manner.

Miljöpartiet also considers that the Public Health Agency needs to receive a clearer mandate to investigate how children and young people are affected by parents' or other adults' gambling and gambling problems. The agency should be tasked with producing material for schools that wish to work with preventive measures regarding gambling.

It is also important to review how one can ensure that staff within psychiatry and addiction care receive training in the treatment of gambling addiction.

The municipalities' budget and debt counseling, as well as the Swedish Enforcement Authority, can also play a role when it comes to informing and educating about the economic risks of gambling.

We also consider it important that the role of the Gambling Inspectorate and how it can be strengthened is reviewed.

Madam Speaker! The narcotics investigation has already been mentioned several times. The final report was submitted in October 2023. The investigation provides several proposals on how a continued restrictive narcotics policy can be combined with effective narcotics prevention work, good substance abuse and addiction care that includes interventions for harm minimization and interventions to ensure that no one dies as a result of drug and narcotics poisoning. We welcome the report and believe that the government should primarily return with a bill based on it.

Recently, very pleasing news arrived that the government plans to proceed with the work on the proposals from the Mental Illness Inquiry. Here, there should be opportunities to simultaneously proceed with the proposals from the Narcotics Inquiry.

Much could be done to improve addiction care, not least regarding support in recovery and integration into society after a period of addiction. To reach that, I believe that the goal for Swedish drug policy should be changed to "a society with reduced harm from drugs based on a restrictive view of drugs."

In our society, those who are dependent on drugs are subjected to enormous stigmatization. It is important that measures are taken that aim to save lives and reduce stigmatization and that focus on care rather than punishment. The Government should investigate how the law on the criminalization of personal use has affected the number of addicts and users as well as their quality of life, health, and drug-freedom.

It was pleasing to hear the speech from the Liberals' Jakob Olofsgård, who spoke about the importance of laboratory space. This is something that our two parties have debated in Dagens Medicin. Miljöpartiet considers it the government's responsibility to decide on that issue and looks forward to the government taking measures to make research activities with laboratory space possible.

I stand behind all our reservations and move for approval only of reservation 18.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 13 February.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)